« Development Watch: 128 North 10th Street StreetLevel: Upscale Mexican Hits the South Slope »
October 11, 2007
House of the Day: 109 Gates Avenue
What was the current owner of 109 Gates Avenue thinking when he shelled out $2 million for the five-story brick house in Clinton Hill last winter? The stop-start renovation had been on going since a group of investors had bought the place for $1.1 million back in early '05. We'd been hoping that the reno was taking so long because of a painstaking restoration effort. Not so. The result is a cheap-looking Home Depot special on the upper three floors (in addition to the two unfinished bottom floors that are for rent, presumably for commercial purposes), a decision the owner must be regretting as the house sits on the market for the ridiculous asking price of $2,800,000. Especially in this market, if you build cheap, you're gonna have to sell cheap. Time to wake up and smell the coffee.
109 Gates Avenue [Brooklyn Properties] GMAP P*Shark
Mural, And Then a Restaurant, at 109 Gates Avenue [Brownstoner]
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/2524
Comments
I don't think there's any way in hell they will be able to recoup the 2 million they bought it for last year. Totally overpriced and 2.8 is a complete joke.
This house is overpriced by AT LEAST a million dollars.
It MIGHT go for 1.8 and even then I don't think it's worth it.
What are these people thinking?? You can buy one of the nicest houses in Park Slope for 2.8 million!
Posted by: guest at October 11, 2007 1:46 PM
Nice corner spot but a ridiculous price for something that still needs work.
I guess I will let the "German Restaurant" dream die. What a dream it was.
Posted by: Lothar of the Clinton Hill People at October 11, 2007 2:02 PM
The guy could have stayed home and shat in his pants with the same effect, and saved $2 million.
Posted by: guest at October 11, 2007 2:03 PM
hmmm, let's see, cheap windows, light fixtures, mouldings, floors, kitchen cabinets, appliances, all for almost $3 million. What the hell are these people smoking, can I get a hit!!
Posted by: guest at October 11, 2007 2:09 PM
The reno is not that bad,,,Not crazy about the windows only because it doesn't go with the house also it would have been put in some stainless steel stove ....2.8 Million is alot of cheese... 1.2 seems suffice but I do like the apt. not bad
Posted by: mysideofstuy at October 11, 2007 2:11 PM
Folks, this was fraud!! Flip, fraud, flip fraud!
The What
Someday this war is gonna end.......
Posted by: guest at October 11, 2007 2:12 PM
Now you're talking, The What!
Posted by: brownstoner at October 11, 2007 2:17 PM
What is sad is that they put on all the lights for the photos BUT this only serves to highlight the $20 fixtures. Nice.
Posted by: guest at October 11, 2007 2:17 PM
@2:09 yeah you can get a hit, but i'll cost you 2.8 million
Posted by: mysideofstuy at October 11, 2007 2:25 PM
so which owner put in the cheap renovation stuff? this building has been out of commission for years after a fire ruined the bodega on the ground floor, maybe they blew their budget on getting that burnt smell out of the walls!
Posted by: Jimmy Legs at October 11, 2007 2:26 PM
Here folks, check out this blog. Her name is Rachel Dollar. She is a Lawyer that investigates Mortgage fraud. Some of the stories are unbelievable.
http://www.mortgagefraudblog.com/
Someday this war is gonna end........
The What
Posted by: guest at October 11, 2007 3:05 PM
I have to agree. Flip-fraud.
Posted by: gwbrubaker at October 11, 2007 3:16 PM
And ya know, as sad as it is to see some jackass screw up the interior of a brownstone, at least the rest of us don't have to look at that. We DO, however, have to suffer these ridiculous criss-cross mullions in the windows. This house is within the Clinton Hill Historic District--you can't slap ugly shit like this onto a landmark house when said shit is visible from the street. They couldn't have included this in a permit application--would have been immediately denied.
Would someone nearby please snap a photo, print out the violation complaint form for the Landmark Preservation Commish...
(http://www.nyc.gov/html/lpc/downloads/pdf/forms/violation_form.pdf)
...and drop a dime on this schmuck?
Posted by: Rehab at October 11, 2007 3:17 PM
Brownie, can you get some grammar check installed? It's "you're gonna have to sell cheap," not "your gonna have to sell cheap."
Thank you.
Posted by: linkinplace at October 11, 2007 3:17 PM
That kitchen is terrible.It seems to be a large home so too bad someone with a good vision didnt get a hold of it yet. Hopefully the seller will come to his senses and price it so that someone can take it and develop a needed business in that spot.Any suggestions?
Posted by: guest at October 11, 2007 3:19 PM
the problem is the seller is not even going to get what he/she paid for it...
Posted by: guest at October 11, 2007 3:27 PM
linkinplace:
how can you criticize incorrect use of "your", but not point out that "gonna" is not a word or acceptable abbreviation of "going to".
why are we criticizing grammar anyway on a real estate blog?
Posted by: guest at October 11, 2007 3:28 PM
Actually, they're asking $2.85 million, not $2.8. What a sick joke.
Posted by: guest at October 11, 2007 3:32 PM
Ugly reno. So sad that they did this on the cheap. I hope they lose their shirts.
Posted by: guest at October 11, 2007 3:37 PM
Ugly reno. So sad that they did this on the cheap. I hope they lose their shirts.
Posted by: guest at October 11, 2007 3:37 PM
Ugly reno. So sad that they did this on the cheap. I hope they lose their shirts.
Posted by: guest at October 11, 2007 3:37 PM
why is this fraud? bad business judgment, maybe, but i don't see what's fraudulent.
Posted by: z at October 11, 2007 3:53 PM
The listing says there are 4 gut renovated one-bedroom units. Really? are they all only 1 bed each?
Also, if the windows are not allowed by landmarks (which would make sense as they are ugly pieces of %^&*), then what teeth does landmarks have to make the owners comply and change the windows?
I ask this because we've got new construction all over brooklyn that violates zoning laws and building codes but nothing rarely happens to those property owners...
Posted by: guest at October 11, 2007 3:53 PM
When they sell, will the city allow the deed to be recorded if there is an open LPC violation? The landmarks designation is recorded in the title chain, after all.
Posted by: guest at October 11, 2007 4:01 PM
they've turned this beauty into sheetrock heaven...
This corner property would rock if it had 2 attached garages...
Posted by: BedStuyGal at October 11, 2007 4:04 PM
I don't know how aggressive or effective LPC is on violations (does anybody else?), but a read of their website says that depending on the severity of the violation, they can slap you with some pretty juicy fines. This one would seem to qualify as a serious, Type A violation:
The Landmarks Protection Law defines two types of violations: type A and type B.
Type A violations include serious alterations to important architectural elements, such as cornices, stoops, windows, and storefronts; additionally, construction of rooftop or backyard additions may fit into this category. First-time type A violations are punishable by a fine of up to $5,000, if a second NOV is issued, there will be a fine of up to $250 per day, with a minimum fine of $5,000.
Type B violations include all other, less serious infractions, such as painting a facade a new color, replacing a single window, or installing a light, sign, flagpole or banner. First-time Type B violations are punishable by a fine of up to $500; if a second NOV is issued, there will be a fine of up to $50 per day, with a minimum fine of $500.
Posted by: Rehab at October 11, 2007 4:05 PM
Guest 4:06 likes discipline!
Posted by: Rehab at October 11, 2007 4:13 PM
Like any city agency, the Landmarks Preservation Commission has teeth when it wants to. It is not, however, in the business of bankrupting homeowners for doing small things outside its jurisdiction.
They have DOB permits for their work on the building, which means either that they have explicit Landmarks permission or a Landmarks waiver for those windows. My guess is that those windows really did look like that on the tax photo, and that's what LPC approved.
Posted by: Shahn Andersen at October 11, 2007 4:39 PM
Why, why, why did they not choose brown or black windows?
Choosing white has just got to be the most painful architectural/design/aesthetic mistake that people make on these historic structures, and yet so easy to avoid...
Why?
Posted by: guest at October 11, 2007 4:58 PM
Actually the LPC REQUIRED these "criss cross" windows. The original (to construction) were in terrible shape and needed to be replaced. I'd venture to guess that money ran out REAL fast after the windows were ordered and the kitchens took it hard.
Posted by: guest at October 11, 2007 5:25 PM
Oh... wasn't familiar with this building pre-rehab, and as such shot my mouth off about the mullions. Thanks, Shahn and 5:25. Mea culpa. Still, I wish they weren't white.
Posted by: Rehab at October 11, 2007 5:32 PM
Well, Landmarks has never been accused of having great taste. Their job is to make things look like they did back in the day. If it was ugly back in the day, the LPC is going to make sure it is ugly again. :)
Posted by: Shahn Andersen at October 11, 2007 7:10 PM
I don't know if any of you remember but the place was almost gutted by fire. There was very little if any details to salvage. I knew the former owners and it was a real shame that the building was so badly burned. Although I have to agree the price is high and the renovation at least from what I can see in the pics is not the best it still is valuable for the commercial/retail space, the fact that its a corner property is also huge,you have lots of windows. I don't know what it will eventually sell for but I think the property even in its present state is valuable.
Posted by: guest at October 11, 2007 8:29 PM
I live on the block and walk by that house frequently. Every single one of the house's windows is Marvin (I saw them installed, and the stickers were on for weeks last year). The criss-cross thing was required by landmarks. As a whole, I have to disagree with most of the comments here- I think the apartments are fine for rentals. Question is, what becomes of the ground floor space?
Posted by: guest at October 11, 2007 9:31 PM
I say break the fucking building down and put up a gosh damned hot dog stand.
That way, The What's mother will never run out of wieners to suck.
Posted by: guest at October 12, 2007 12:11 AM
i think that they would rent out quickly too. how much could you get for it tho? $2500? are there 4, then that's 10K plus whatever for the retail. don't think that it would cover your mortgage and expenses. am i adding this up wrong?
Posted by: guest at October 12, 2007 12:17 AM
Exactly 12:17--the math doesn't add up if you're shelling out $2.85 and using a mortgage. Ridiculous.
Posted by: guest at October 12, 2007 12:26 AM
12:17 Go buy it then. Good luck, knucklehead.
Posted by: guest at October 12, 2007 7:55 AM
Regarding the criss-cross windows--they actually duplicate the ones pre-fire. But they were painted brown and looked much better. I assumed at some point that these would be painted as well.
Posted by: tinarina at October 12, 2007 9:49 AM
I used to own the building. It is a beauty. It is a shame to see that the jerk who purchased it from us totally screwed up the work and that he never completed the builiding as he described to us. He also stiffed the trades who were waiting for Landmark to finally get its act together.
Landmark kept us waiting for almost 2 years because we wanted to remove the side stairs which were not original to the building. In addition the bums in the neighborhood kept breaking in and stealing anything they could get their hands on.
I hope the new owner does it justice and by the way, can a building be sold with outstanding liens on it? Whoever said flip fraud was right. What a disgrace.
the mullioned windows that folks think are ugly are original to the building. They would make a better statement painted a color close to the brownstone.
Posted by: bklyngirl at October 13, 2007 9:05 PM
Post a comment
Please be patient while your comment is published. It may take a moment.